TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 531, 10 June 1880, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents are invited to discuss matters of public interest with fairness and brevity ; this journal being an impartial medium of discussion and advocacy for all affairs relating to the County of Patca.] . DAM A GING THE CRICKET GROUND. Sir, — In justice to the members of the Carlyle Football Club, I feel it my duty, as captain, not to allow Mr Samuel Taplin’s letter in your issue of Ist instant to pass unnoticed. I ignored his former letter, because the question of damage was not then tested, play not having commenced for the season ; but'in his last the exaggerations are so palpable as to demand contradiction. The turfed portion bears slight evidence of last Saturday’s match with Waverley, but that it is “ practically spoilt” is absurd. Were it in the same condition as now one month before commencing cricket, my own opinion, as well as that of experienced persons, enables me to say that, a little attention to rolling, grassing, &c., would make it as fit for the purpose for which .the turf was laid as ever JSlr Taplin or anyone else has known it.

Mr Taplin says the turf was laid at the expense of the Cricket Club. I correct him by stating that the public of Carlyle materially assisted. lam a member of the Cricket Club myself, but I rather prefer not to forget this public assistance. When Mr Taplin first raised an objection to our game being played across the cricket pitch, we assured him that we were each and all quite as anxious as he to save it from damage, and that our game would do it no harm so long as the dry season lasted. He wished us to sacrifice that pleasant clump of flax bushes, which cricketers all admit are so useful and ornamental to the ground 1 in summer, and play our game across the field ; but had we accepted his suggestion, we must have played on a diminutive space, i.e ., smaller than is legitimate with Rugby rules, and wc really could not see our way to humor him so far.

At a meeting of our Football Club held a few weeks ago, we certainly did pass a resolution to the effect that we recognised the right in equity of the Cricket Club to have their pitch preserved from damage. I beg to state that we. have quite acted up to this hitherto. The expression “ ungentlemanly,” twice used by Mr Taplin in his letter, I can only look upon as badly advised, and one that reflects on himself. In conclusion, as we are looking forward to the approaching wet season, and are quite as mindful of the marshy nature of the Recreation Ground as Mr Taplin, we shall probably play our last game on it next Saturday, and thereafter migrate to some other available ground. I trust, as you have allowed your readers to hear one side of the question, you will permit them to hear a word on the other. Yours, &c., Hugh Coutts. Carlyle, 4th,

HARBOR BOARD CORRESPONDENCE. Sir,— Mr John Gibson, in his last letter, takes advantage of a palpable error contained in a resolution. The whole of the members, including Mr Gibson, knew that it was the west (town) side' that was meant. The application for the order,and all subsequent correspondence prove that. I voted against the resolution, because my proposal became greatly changed when an amendment had been added for giving assistance to the Boiling-down Company. As this was diametrically opposed to the interest of the Board, I opposed it, and to do that I had to vote against my own resolution after it bad been amended. Mr

Gibson knows that I have consistently advocated the erection of a wharf on the town side ; therefore his statement that the resolution to have the wharf on the town side was carried in the teeth of my opposition is simply absurd. lam much gratified to find that I have “ had to rely upon” Mr Gibson’s support in carrying through many matter's of importance to the Board ; but I regret that I cou:d not rely upon his support in endeavoring to induce the Government to bring the railway on to the propert}' of the Harbor Board, and so-securing the erection of the wharf by the Government free of cost to the Board, besides increasing- the value of the endowments by at least ten thousand pounds. But perhaps Mr Gibson does not think this of sufficient importance to the Board. Sir, the whole question is in- - volved in the railway site. Telegrams, resolutions, orders in Council, and correspondence, all prove that the real question at issue has been the railway site. Had I favored the other side it would have been . all right with certain individuals, Mr Gibson among them. it is a matter for regret that I cannot please everybody. If Mr Gibson wishes to make a case against me, let him state plainly, if he can do so,, that I have done something against the true interests of the Harbor Board. Until lie can do so, I must decline to keep up a correspondence with him upon such trivial points as those he has raised in his letters to you. I am, &c-, .i ; : ’ - : G. F,. SnauwooD.

[editorial note.] Reference was made in previous letters to a ‘‘ certified copy ” of a resolution taken from the minute book. • Tho resolution contained an erroi’, describing the proposed wharf as on the east side, whereas the west (or town) side was obviously meant. This error was in the resolution as originallj 7 ' drawn, arid tho Board discussed and voted on it without amending the error. We understand that the clerk, in recording the minutes, called the attention of one or two members privately to the error ; but the resolution had to be entered as passed. Mr Gibson obtained a certified copy of that resolution, and published it. Other members then pointed out that he had done so without setting; the matter right by explaining that “ east side ” in the- resolution meant “ rvest.” We call attention to this in order that the secretary may not be supposed to have made the error ; and also to point out that the Harbor Board will have to rescind that resolution, and pass another correctly describing the side intended for tho wharf. It is clearly out of order for the Board to resolve to erect a wharf on the east side, and then apply for an Order in Council to erect it on the west side, without passing a fresh resolution to that effect. , It would be equally out of order for one or more members to contend that the wharf ought to be put on the east side merely because the Board had resolved, by oversight, to put it on tile east side. — Ed. Mail.